@Greg - eviltoast

Greg Clarke

Mastodon: @greg@clar.ke

  • 69 Posts
  • 700 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 9th, 2022

help-circle



















  • Greg Clarke@lemmy.catoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldDon't Look Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Sure, I’ll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you’ve committed in this thread.

    1. Ad Hominem

    Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.

    Quote:

    “If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”

    Formal Logic:

      (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)
      Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)
    

    This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.


    2. Genetic Fallacy

    Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.

    Quote:

    “Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”

    Formal Logic:

      (Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C
    

    You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.


    3. Motte and Bailey

    Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.

    Quote:

    “So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”

    Formal Logic:

      Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”
      You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”
      Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”
      Then argue:
      ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P
    

    It’s a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!


    4. Fallacy Fallacy

    Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.

    Quote:

    “Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’…”

    Formal Logic:

      (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)
      Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)
    

    Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).


    5. Begging the Question

    Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.

    Quote (from your rebuttal):

    “Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”

    Formal Logic:

      (You assume: ¬P)
      Then argue: ¬P
      \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]
    

    You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.


    6. Poisoning the Well

    Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.

    Quote:

    “Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”

    Formal Logic:

      Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)
    

    This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.

    edit: fixing formatting